The 2012 UK Conference of Science Journalists was held on June 25th. The programme is available on the UKCSJ web site. I attended two of the sessions: the first was a session was entitled “What can journalists do to uncover scientific misconduct?”; the second was the plenary at the end. What follows is my perspective on those sessions.

___________________

Misconduct session

Misconduct is what most people call “fraud”. This session had three speakers.

The first speaker was the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Anaesthesia, Steve Yentis. Yentis told about the case of Joachim Boldt, an anesthesiologist who has had over 80 papers retracted. He also told about the case of case of Yoshitaka Fujii, an anesthesiologist who seems to have published 193 bogus papers. A third case was also cited, though I did not get the details. Yentis has been leading the charge to get more integrity in anesthesiology.

The second speaker was Peter Aldhous, from New Scientist magazine. Aldhous has worked to expose fraud with stories in New Scientist. His presentation seemed sound, but there was no substantial news. (The slides for his presentation are on his web site.) One point he made was that institutions are unlikely to fairly investigate allegations of fraud made against their own researchers: this obvious point seemed to be new to some people.

The third speaker was Ginny Barbour, who is the Chair of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE). Barbour said that COPE was working to get institutions to investigate allegations of fraud made against their own researchers. She also claimed that only a few percent of research publications are fraudulent.

During the question period, someone stated that science journalists should be cheerleading science, and that fraud is very rare, and anyway science is self-correcting. More generally, many people there genuinely believed that almost all scientists are virtually always honest. Those people work with science all day, and yet they seem to have no clue about how science really operates. Overall, I found the session stunningly disheartening: there is an enormous way to go, to get many journalists to appreciate what reality is.

I pointed out that all the examples of fraud given by the speakers were in medical science. I noted that in the UK, during the past half century, there does not seem to have been a single case where a non-medical researcher has been officially found to have committed fraud. That is clearly unreasonable. Consider much smaller groups of respected people: members of parliament, Catholic priests, police detectives—in each instance, we know that during half a century, at least a few of them will have committed serious crimes.

I also described how I once reported a fraud at the University of Reading. The university refused to investigate: I was told that the university had no procedures for investigating such allegations, because their professors always act with integrity.

The conclusion is that there is no accountability. I said that there were some fields of science where half the research publications were bogus. That was in conflict with the claim of Barbour, and did not go over well.

Some journalists seemed to think that verifying research fraud requires specialist scientific expertise. I gave two counterexamples from my own work. One counterexample is in archaeoastronomy of China, where a fraud consisted of claiming that a figure with four dots in it actually had five dots in it: in other words, understanding the fraud only requires being able to count to five. I published a paper on this, which overturned the previous 20 years of research in the field. The other counterexample was the analysis by Phil Jones on Chinese weather stations; I mentioned this only briefly, as I did not want to get into the emotive politics of global warming.

Afterwards, I briefly talked with Aldhous. Aldhous explained how a journalist might have to put in as much time to get a story about fraud as to get, say, 75 stories about usual science. From a business perspective, that is obviously a serious problem.

I also briefly talked with Barbour. I repeated the point that Aldhous had made about institutions investigating their own researchers. Barbour replied that she was aware of the problem, but having institutions investigate their own was the best that could currently be done. At the time, I could not think of anything polite to say in response to such nonsense. It is obvious that having institutions investigate their own is worse than doing nothing, because it tends to give the illusion of there being a real investigation. (We have seen such illusory investigations with Climategate, for example.)

Barbour then talked about the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. She suggested that it was via the Code that research would gain more integrity. The Code contains statements saying that editors should “strive to constantly improve their journal”, should be “supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics”, and should “publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them”. Those are plainly platitudes. The Code makes no mention of research data having to be disclosed, of computer programs having to be available, etc.—that is, it lacks most of the specifics that would be needed for it to accomplish anything non-illusory.

___________________

Plenary session

This session had four speakers.

The first speaker was the journalist William Cullerne Bown. Bown said that science journalism is failing: his main evidence is the small number of readers. He explained how, after the development of the atomic bomb, the public became fascinated by science and the promise to change civilization. That promise has not been fulfilled, at least not nearly as much as was claimed half a century ago. In consequence, public interest in science has lessened, and shifted more to technology.

Bown noted that the big stories about scientific failures have been missed. He also commented on large institutions involved in science—citing the Royal Society, Elsevier, and the Wellcome Trust—saying that such institutions “have their own interests”, which are not necessarily those of science. He observed that there is lots of corruption among politicians and business people; so how could it be that there is seemingly almost none among scientists? He criticized the many science journalists who seem to treat scientists as being almost like demigods.

The second speaker was the economist and BBC journalist Evan Davis. Davis cautioned journalists about focusing on negative aspects of science, such as fraud, saying that negative publicity might bias scientists against doing anything, and we want to encourage scientists to continue their work. He later said that “exposure [of fraud] is not a very good goal” for science journalism.

I think that there are many people like Davis: people who have effectively taken science to be their religion and scientists to be their priests or even gods. Those people are deeply fearful of having their religious beliefs defenestrated. The result is the anti-journalism on display here.

The third speaker was Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at New York University. Rosen was also the person who delivered the keynote address for the conference. He stated that it was important for journalists to “confront climate change denialism”. He came across as being highly certain of himself, while having little understanding of the issues, i.e. a typical third-rate academic.

The fourth speaker was the President of the Association of British Science Writers, Connie St Louis; St Louis is also the Director of Science Journalism at City University London. St Louis argued that journalists are too close to scientists. She said that fraud is “very very underreported” and that in consequence “we have failed as journalists”. She closed with the exhortation “let’s have some real journalism”.

The statements by St Louis prompted discussion. Bown said that he agreed with the statements. Many people, however, seemed to disagree. Someone in the audience said that fraud is confined to a few isolated individuals.

I repeated my main point from the earlier session: in the UK, during the past half century, there does not seem to have been a single case where a non-medical researcher has been officially found to have committed fraud. This demonstrates that there is no accountability.

I also gave an example from my own work, in radiocarbon dating. In radiocarbon dating, a chemical measurement is made on the remains of an organism, and then a statistical procedure is used to calculate how many years ago the organism died. I had found an error in the statistical procedure: thus, most radiocarbon dates are inaccurate. I submitted a paper on this to a journal. The paper had five peer reviews, all recommending rejection; in each case, I wrote a rebuttal—in some cases pointing out clear dishonesty by the reviewer. The editors actually asked a total of 25 scientists to peer review the paper; the remaining 20 declined to do a review, but were often were critical of the paper’s claim. In other words, out of 25 scientists, not one could be found to recommend accepting the paper. Eventually, the journal sent the paper to a statistician, whom I was told was eminent; the statistician said that the paper was obviously correct. The paper was then published. Thus, this is an example of an entire field covering up a substantial error—presumably because they want to avoid the embarrassment of admitting making such a mistake.

___________________

For me, the take-home message from the conference is that a large majority of science journalists are extremely naive about scientists. The naivety is so extreme that I suspect it must be partially willful.

For global-warming skeptics, something else should perhaps be mentioned. Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not. Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming. This tells us something important: the underlying cause of the problem is not specific to global warming.

I mention this especially because some skeptics seem to believe that what is needed is reform of the IPCC. Yes, the IPCC could benefit from reform. But that would not solve the problem.

We have known for millennia that prerequisites for integrity in human affairs include things like transparency and accountability. Those things should be in all scientific research.

Reader Comments (61)

IMHO science journalism has been failing for 20 years, although there have been a very few individuals who have tried to buck the trend. Newspaper science journalism is almost non-existent such is the prevalence of regurgitated press releases. For me the BBC is the worst culprit. Their science journalism has no spirit, no depth and no width. Has Shukman ever told us anything we didn't already know or that wasn't all over the internet? They completely lost their marbles on Global Warming err..sorry Climate Change. But what is new I recall watching the TV when the BSE scare was on - totally out of all perspective, alarmist.

Connie S is right. I read somewhere recently someone saying that the BBC is carrying out science communication, because it certainly isn't questioning, it isn't journalism.

Outstanding review. I have run into these same sorts of arguments and assumptions in my debates over thw years. Scientists are always assumed to be unbiased a priori because "that's how science works." And also the line about "only a few bad apples" comes up often. I am sure that if we knew the true exyent of the corruption we would be appalled. Imagine how many things we think we know are just lies perpetuated to further careers or to suppress society. It is a chilling thought.

Thanks, Doug. I think you've done us all a service here.I could never have been a "science" journalist but I'm not really sure that there is such a thing. The principle applies across the board every time a press release lands on your desk: "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" followed by "There are just a couple of points I'd like you to clarify for me" usually followed by the sound of the phone being turned off at the other end.Why the new breed of "science journalist" or "environmental correspondent" believe that basic journalist practice doesn't apply beats me.I'm also a bit puzzled by the existence of a "Department of Science Journalism". WTF?

I dont think it is only science; it is the whole of society. Integrity and honesty are out personal gain is the name of the game. In business, in politics and in sport there are now too many people with agendas.

"Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not. Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming. This tells us something important: the underlying cause of the problem is not specific to global warming."

This is an idea that has worried me for a while. Why don't more scientists speak out about the truly appalling standards displayed in climate science? Is it because there's a whole can of worms there that scientists don't want opened up? Are other areas of science this bad? If a similar amount of srutiny was shone on other areas of science, would we find similar problems?

Perhaps I am naive but I feel that in areas like engineering, electronics, chemistry, physics, materials science, the half-life of bogus research is short. Physical experiments in these fields are either reproducible or not.

Hence fraud/misconduct (I suspect) are not as common in these fields as in others. There are, however, famous cases - like that of Schoen. But generally speaking, once detected, such cases end up with publication withdrawals and general disgrace.

"For global-warming skeptics, something else should perhaps be mentioned. Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not. Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming. This tells us something important: the underlying cause of the problem is not specific to global warming."

Well, there is something special about fraud in climate research. No other scientific discipline 'informs' public policy as much as climate science does.

Over at Discovery website, Ed Yong reports another case of fraud in psychology where the perpetrator is now an ex-Professor.

Unlike in climate science, however, the cases of fraud in psychology do not end up costing governments and consumers endless billions (trillions?) of dollars. So yes, I am naturally far more concerned about fraud in climate science than in psychology or in any other scientific discipline.

I recommend everyone have a look at Yong's piece. The latest scientific fraud in psychology was also discovered by a statistician who was unconvinced by the conclusion of the research.

The 'whistleblower', who has just been named as Uri Simonsohn, asked for the data and "used a new and unpublished statistical method to search for suspicious patterns in the data" to uncover the fraud.

Best post I have seen in a while, thank you. I think the effect is rampant in all areas of journalism ie. reporting via press release with no real work put into articles looking for accuracy or other views.

The book by Bill Bryson, A Short History Of Nearly Everything, is peppered with many, many examples throughout history of fraud in science. The petty jealosies and childish vindictiveness by some of the "great" names in science has always gone on.Sadly it was only long after they died did their mendacity come to be known to the public at large. Usually, their peers knew exactly what was going on but said nothing, sometimes even ruining anyone who tried to correct an error. That was before the internet but very little is different now.Well worth a read or at least dipping into.

Anyone remember this from the Penn State investigation into a certain Michael Mann in 2010?

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.

The Fourth Estate’s effectiveness as a gatekeeper has been on the wane for many years. Investigative journalism appears to be a thing of the past, today's breed seems happy to be a purveyor of spin, especially if akin to their inherent leanings.

I can’t remember who it was that first namned blogs such BH, CA, WUWT etc as "The Fifth Estate" but it is now a clear and very apt description. Awareness of The Fifth Estate will grow as it continues to demonstrate an ability to carry out scientific investigations/audits in a calm, open and respectful manner.

And as the "gatekeepers" continue to decline their responsibilities, the need for The Fifth Estate is becoming all the more obvious.

I have been putting together some ideas for a presentation as a guest speaker to a university class this fall on the topic of global warming and how non-scientists can evaluate claims. I had decided already that the best approach to shoot down the appeal to authority was to start out with the Amgen and Bayer work showing how rotten the science is in cancer and biotech research. To get students to realize they needed to question the claims of the hockey team and the IPCC, the easiest path seems to be to show how bad all of science is, to show how worthless peer review is, etc.

Later on in the presentation, I intend to walk through very briefly the details of 3 climate studies to show how even students without science training can immediately see how bad the work is. Those would be Mann's mann-o-matic hockey stick screener, Rahmstorf's smoothie blender flavored with pretend data, and Monnett's polar bear fantasy. Add in brief references to Jones' response to Hughes, his use of fake Chinese data without accountability, Harry Read Me, and some of the e-mails.

Mix in a discussion of Hansen's magic extrapolation of cool thermometer readings into hot Arctic temps where no thermometers exist, plus Anthony's findings that almost 90% of thermometers flunk basic scientific standards = students willing to consider that science may not be quite as settled as they have been led to believe.

Utterly true... but let's not stop at deliberate fraud; there are even more examples of scientists simply making honest mistakes, like everyone else.

An enlightening exercise is to go through some copies of a popular science journal like New Scientist from, say, ten years ago, and to see what proportion of promising results and 'discoveries' went exactly nowhere. My estimate is somewhere over 80%. Some may have been right but irrelevant; many, I suspect, were just plain wrong.

Finally, someone other than me who realizes that the incompetent climate science is just the tip of a much larger, deeper problem, that cuts across all of the sciences, especially the physical sciences, and particularly the earth and life sciences. That problem is the clinging to unquestioned dogma in modern science, in the face of new knowledge that should have killed such dogma long ago. False theories are being militantly, defiantly defended as "settled" fact (beginning and ending with Darwinian evolution, the archetypal example for all of them). The general paradigm, of undirected "evolution" of all that scientists observe in the world and beyond, has failed, and scientists are running on empty, instead of on sure knowledge. General incompetence is the order of the day, and it will only get worse, so long as the "experts" continue to be considered experts, and anonymous "peer review" is unquestioningly accepted as satisfactory, much less probative of "settled science".

"Many global-warming skeptics seem to think that there is something special about the prevalence of bogus research in global warming. There is not."

Skeptics that have published in other fields of science or engineering know that all peer-reviewed-literature is awash with garbage results. There is nothing canonical about climate science.

Years ago, my reaction to Hansen or Trenberth or Mann claiming infallibility of such-and-such aspect of climate science was one of stunned incredulity (did he really say that?!?). After investigating the details, this was followed by laughter and then anger at their arrogance and hubris based on such flimsy or nonexistent or deliberately tampered evidence.

Climate science is now overflowing with cherry-picked studies using cherry-picked data, performed by cherry-picked scientists, and reported by cherry-picked journalists. The self-selection-created bias and emotional contamination of work product is unavoidable.

After all, why does an undergrad student decide to study climate change or sustainability? Why does a college student decide to pursue environmental journalism?

I think that there are many people like Davis: people who have effectively taken science to be their religion and scientists to be their priests or even gods. Those people are deeply fearful of having their religious beliefs defenestrated. The result is the anti-journalism on display here.

That attitude does seem more prevalent; to assume that focusing on negatives somehow helps dismantles the institution of science, which had to date somehow managed to struggle along since the Greeks without Evan Davis’s cheer-leading. When I see that combination : a self-flattery of the power of journalism and the putting on a pedestal of science, I see it as a sign of a mutual spiral downwards into mediocrity or worse. The trouble is I think there are many scientists who willingly play the opposite part to that implied contract.

I think science has to date benefited from the association with the long age of technology that has walked hand in hand with growing prosperity over the last century and a half, and this has kept its reputation buoyant. But as science now becomes more seen as an agent of deliberate social contraction and social manipulation I think it will quickly lose its sheen and then the continued cheerleading of the likes of Davis’s will only look ever more overtly creepy.

Green Sand "And as the "gatekeepers" continue to decline their responsibilities, the need for The Fifth Estate is becoming all the more obvious."Agreed, and just maybe we are seeing the start of this via the web with blogs such as this, WUWT, Climate Audit etc.With print media becoming less and less profitable we are only going to see the 4th estate wither and die.It deserves nothing less.Now, how do we get rid of the BBC?

"I fear you are naive: the point is that the successful crooks end up in charge of the game."

How right you are. People who have not yet done so should hasten to read Robert Zubrin's latest book:

Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism

http://tinyurl.com/7b8rbka

It touches only lightly - and even-handedly - on climate science (sorry Bish, you don't crack a mention), but clearly makes the case that from Malthus through Ehrlich to Gore fraudulent science benefits scientific frauds.

Great post, Doug, and thanks for your intestinal fortitude in sitting through so much naivete and sophistry so you could report back to us.

Your point about institutions investigating their own potential scandals is well made. The downside for them if they find skulduggery is massive - internal brawls, loss of prestige, loss of funding, witch-hunts to discover how it all came about, etc. We have had a few high profile cases in Australia in recent years (not involving climate science, which is apparently clean is the driven) where there is no doubt, to an objective observer, that something was very amiss indeed. But, the Universities' hand-picked investigation teams, who were only appointed after extensive media coverage made action unavoidable - have never once conceded that deliberate malfeasance occurred. Not once, not ever. Uncanny, eh? People resigned, retired, or were shuffled off into other jobs - but never suspended, let alone sacked. The whistleblowers did rather less well.

The closest case where anything bad emerged from investigations was where a Vice-Chancellor bent the rules to let a close relative into a course for which the person had not satisfied the entry requirements - and all that happened was that he retired a few months earlier than planned. No sanctions whatsoever. And, there was too much objective evidence of wrongdoing, plus public indignation, for him to get away with it. But as for research fraud, so far, apparently, it has never happened.

So-called science journalists are now usually unashamedly activist 'environment reporters' with a sideline in uncritically regurgitating press releases from other branches of science. They tend to be completely untrained and illiterate in science and mathematics. Between them and the institutions, and the increasingly sloppy and occasionally corrupt journals, it is a perfect storm for creating the lamentable and deplorable MSM coverage of science that we see today. Yay for the Fifth Estate (bloggers) which throws light into the murky corners and allows proper science to be practised and promulgated in the Dark Age of popular science that we currently inhabit.

I would argue that the reason that medical science frauds are exposed is that there is an economic interest in doing so. If you can destroy the credibility of an avenue of research, or a pharmaceutical it can promote your area of research, or the new drug you are behind.

In climate science, the opposite occurs. If you were to discredit another scientist through your research you don't get more grants, you get less. If you were to single-handedly destroy CAGW you would be ostracized, not promoted. There is no financial gain for an academic or their employing institution to publish such research.

Yesterday I came across one of the most egregious examples of false science being pushed by a major scientific body. It's here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

In the derivation of equation 15, this is claimed: 'The warmed surface radiates as a blackbody, and also loses heat through rising in air currents or evaporated moisture.'

There is no such physics because in the atmosphere, radiation and convection are coupled with their sum set by the heat flux into the radiating body. Engineers know this from 70 years of theory and practice: http://www.thermopedia.com/content/204/

It appears that people with very limited knowledge have taken over the presentation of science.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Science pushes at the boundaries of knowledge. So only those who are actually involved can be expected to understand what is going on and everybody else is at a disadvantage. So there is ample opportunity for fraud.

And why was the role of journalists in uncovering scientific fraud included in this conference? Does it indicate that there is a widening concern that fraud is actually becoming more prevalent, or is this just another instance of a bunch of underemployed professionals having a jolly? Do journalists covering other occupations concern themselves with this question?

Addressing the question itself, I doubt journalists have much in the way of advantage except perhaps ease of access. In the case of fraud at the boundary of knowledge the journalist, not actually being an active participant and outside the charmed circle who truly understand what is going on, has to rely on the reports of those within the circle or maybe a little closer to it. Typically these will be of doubtful accuracy and may even be lies. The instances Mr Keenan cited in the discussion (not the plenary) may or not be more common and seem to involve manipulations distant from the boundaries of knowledge, and thus the more easily identified and exposed. They may be examples where forensic journalism may be fruitful.

Scientific journalists seem to be no better equipped than any investigative journalist.

And of course there can be no accountability where frauds are perpetrated at the boundaries of knowledge. It is theoretically possible that accountability could restrain frauds elsewhere, but, as the floundering efforts of the conference participants show, the associated organizational problems seem insurmountable.

In the plenary cession Mr Keenan explained his role in the exposure of a fraud. But as I understand it, Mr Keenan was a member of the charmed circle that understood what was going on. So his example does not relate to the question of what a journalist could do. However, in so far as the conference was concerned with the general question of wrong doing in science, it should have been taken as a useful pointer since it indicates that whatever the problems that beset outsiders like the typical journalist, any insider who cares to may blow the whistle.

But would not these matters be better discussed by scientists themselves, not least because it is their fellows that commit the frauds and because of their superior ability to expose them?

"A new book by Dan Ariely, “The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty”, may reinvigorate the discussion. Mr Ariely is a social psychologist who has spent years studying cheating. He also teaches at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. He has no time for the usual, lazy assumptions. He contends that the vast majority of people are prone to cheating. He also thinks they are more willing to cheat on other people’s behalf than their own. People routinely struggle with two opposing emotions. They view themselves as honourable. But they also want to enjoy the benefits of a little cheating, especially if it reinforces their belief that they are a bit more intelligent or popular than they really are."

What industry 1.) has vast amounts of money 2.) is 'saving the world' 3.) has great prestige in the minds of the popular and intelligent world savers (ie Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC and its legions' CV's) 4.) is prone to noble cause corruption in the worst way?

Why is this industry different from the rest of the world as identified in Mr Ariely's book...?

And where are the checks, balances and independent corruption commissions overseeing it?

Is it wise or useful to equate 'misconduct' with 'fraud'? The term 'fraud' seems to me to have legal connotations, suggesting a criminal intent to deprive others of something to which they are entitled. Some scientific misconduct may indeed to amount to fraud, but equating the two terms could increase the burden of proof for those who are merely alleging some improper or inadequate scientific procedure such as not archiving data and code, or omitting consideration of part of a data set. Many of the failings by scientists in the climate arena seem to me to be fairly ordinary bad (often just 'sloppy') science, coupled in this case with missionary zeal in support of a noble cause. The term 'fabrication' may occasionally be applicable (but still without necessarily implying fraudulent behaviour) when an untrue statement is knowingly made by a scientist with intention to mislead; I think I'm right in saying that Ross McKitrick has suggested that a certain phrase used by Trenberth and Jones (as joint co-ordinating lead authors) in Chapter 3 of IPCC AR4 WG1 may amount to fabrication. This seems to me to be a strong enough allegation without resorting to use of the term 'fraud'. If the allegation is substantiated it could be grounds for withdrawal of the whole chapter.

"Anyone who has looked at other fields of science knows that there are fields that are worse than global warming."

That scares me..Admitedly I have long said that the radiation LNT theory is without evidential backing and bogus & I would barely class economics as a science & almost all of the "reports" that get published by the media on how damaging butter, passive smoke salt etc are are bogus. But I had assumed these were relatively small areas where politicians had ensured there was money for those promote what Michael Crichton referred to as the "state of fear". The writer is saying it goes far beyond that.

Coldish: an example of the 'errors' which litter climate science is here: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html There is no 'surface reflection' physics yet it's claimed it hides all AGW thus explaining no present warming!

[Twomey had warned that his correct physics only works for thinner clouds, so it was switched in time for AR4.]

There is little hope of serious investigative journalism from the traditional media; the principal publically funded TV channels are dedicated to sport, soaps and gameshows, the newspapers filled with "celeb" pap and similar gossip along with churnalism from extreme green advocacy groups.

But is this cause or effect? Their audience seems very happy with this diet, look at the reaction to the Jubilee and Olympics rubbish. Much easier to digest than a suggestion that something might be rotten that they might have to think about. Is it driven by the fact that it's much cheaper for the media to produce than investigative journalism, or is that just a bonus for them?

And another thing...as if to echo Doug's general impression of science worshiping, a poll of Retraction Watch readers has just shown a large percentage of commenters there don't think it worthwhile to mark erroneous scientific articles as "mistaken"

The actual category that came on top with almost half of the votes: "Just leave them as is -- well-informed scientists will know, and not cite them without noting the flaws ". I cannot even start describing how ridiculous such a statement is.

My trust in the ability by humanity to understand the world, has taken a new hit.

Maurizio/omnologos, the Retractionwatch poll you mention hardly qualifies as 'scientific' - for a variety of reasons linked to its own experimental design, but also because the question was asked in the framework of a specific 60-year old paper by a very famous scientist, Linus Pauling, about the structure of nucleic acids. The paper was wrong, but probably (largely) honestly so. Many people will not have answered the poll in the same frame of mind as they would have done had they been asked about an un-famous paper, by a relatively unknown author, which was not only wrong but also fraudulent, published five years ago.

As I read this post, I was slightly alarmed about the remarks on the integrity of anesthesiology since before my shoulder operation a few years ago, I forgot to ask my anesthesiologist if he's had any papers retracted.

Bishop's remark that it seems the only exposed fraud is in medical disciplines, that got me thinking. Is it because research the medical field has a direct effect on the general public? And thus fraudulent research needs to be identified for the public good? If so, that would surely apply to climate science would it not?